Both parties combined don't have the street value of a pile of snail snot. They are both equally worthless. Vote out everyone ever resembling an incumbent.

12:19 pm November 2, 2012

Get the facts straight wrote:

U6 which includes those that have given up on finding employment has gone from 14.2% to 14.7% since Obama took office.

The federal workforce (which is what he actually has control over) has grown by 143,000 according to the Labor Department. More government with less money to pay for it means more debt.

Oil and gas leases in effect on federal land are down 11%. Gas prices have doubled since Obama took office.

As of September, China and Russia are now net sellers of Treasuries. So who’s buying our Treasuries? The Fed through QE1, QE2, and now QEp. We are just printing dollars without any market demand for them.

12:24 pm November 2, 2012

Alex Wolf wrote:

Congress as no.1 and the Fed as no. 2, are governmental entities greatly responsible for jobs, the White House is a distant no.3.

12:35 pm November 2, 2012

Domi wrote:

So Obama "reduced" unemployment from 7.8% to 7.9% today.

And he brags about that.

12:48 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

From the end of the 18-month recession in June 2009 until October 2012 (40 months), total nonfarm payroll is up 2.49%. Forty months after the end of the 16-month recession in 1982, total nonfarm payroll was up 11.4%. Reagan's and Obama's policies were markedly different, as are the results.

12:50 pm November 2, 2012

rae wrote:

Stats can be skewed any way the "skewer" wants. Knowing how corrupt and biased these media reports are in favor of King O-- n o surprise.

12:52 pm November 2, 2012

Here's a clue wrote:

The President does little on the jobs front.....is only a front man like the Queen of England.

Here is why wer are where we are:

This is not a difficult concept…..Americans by and large have been overvalued for a long time in the international labor market. If you looked at the numbers today you saw jobs being created but average hourly wages falling when adjusted for official inflation and decimated when looking at the cost of living for necessary items, food, housing, college costs, ect. This is merely an indication that the rest of the world has caught up to our talent and what we are able to produce in a given period on aggregate. For decades we read how Korean, Chinese and others had demolished US students in math based on standardized tests and we all know how inner city schools have been pumping out 20% of each class who are essentially illiterate. The education and thus ability of our competitors has caught up and suprassed us. The US’ best and brightests (and even just avg and above) continue to make more money as the market has now opened up worldwide for all types of things – but for the middle and below who can only offere their services locally to companies that work worldwide your competition has gone up by about a billion; thus supply demand and that groups bargaining power is nil.

So prepare for decades of this trend because to catch up in education is no easy task. Those in the middle/upper middle and above you will continue to be ostracized and attacked by the usual class warfare subjects as making an unfair amount of money. The sad thing is that if our culture valued education as we once did and as others do now, more people would be prosperous as the world would be your market = more sales/money to get = mroe jobs/salary that can be created and paid.

12:58 pm November 2, 2012

Steve wrote:

At least we know mitt romney will have a job after November, as a dull fox news pundit.

1:01 pm November 2, 2012

murrko76 wrote:

The numbers truly don't lie. 4 more years!!! Thanks to the president, his administration and Fed, the economy is slowly turning. They had to make tough choices even though they were not popular at the time.

1:21 pm November 2, 2012

Colin wrote:

The real looser in this recession are municipal and state governments and services. The sad thing is that these are the services, park maintenance, library hours, education, mass transit, electrical and water infrastructure that actually affect the quality of life of millions of Americans. The Federal government just isn't very good at improving the lives of citizens. The Federal government instead of throwing money around on questionable projects and financial asset relief should have bought state and local debt instead (or in addition to) those other policies. Instead of stabilizing the capitalist system, public policy fed back into the cycle and stifled the recover with state-level austerity.

I don't know why this wasn't a much bigger part of the stimulus, it seems like it'd be popular on both sides of the aisle.

1:28 pm November 2, 2012

The FED chooses to steal only wrote:

Surreal wrote :

“Two things are infinite: the quantitative easing and Fed’s stupidity; and I’m not sure about the quantitative easing.”
― Albert Einstein

12:18 am November 2, 2012
Lord Jacob Rothschild wrote :

Unemployment rate is just a convenient political cover to justify money printing and stealing from the naive ignorant American goyim. The Fed will print and buy bonds from us until we done selling or when we order the Fed to stop.

12:34 am November 2, 2012
Andrew Jackson wrote :

When asked what his greatest accomplishment had been during his two terms as President, Andrew Jackson replied “I killed the Bank.”

Though Jackson ended the central bank, it was re-created in 1913 under a new innocuous-sounding name “The Federal Reserve”.

“Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence …. would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”
– Andrew Jackson (the only President to ever pay off the entire US debt)

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
– Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812)

1:29 pm November 2, 2012

Indie wrote:

The sheeple don't get it, the parties are fetchers for the fed who is in control of the U.S.

1:33 pm November 2, 2012

Joe Mama wrote:

The numbers are horribly out of context. Take a look at the figures on the TOTAL labor force (employed + unemployed). It has consistently grown for the last 20 years, between 1987 and 2007. Then, from 2007 to 2010, it is mysteriously unchanged. The population of the US grew by 10 million people in that period, so why is the labor force not increasing at all?

Because if the total labor force was properly represented (and growing) then the unemployment rate would be closer to 13%

1:49 pm November 2, 2012

YoGaba wrote:

Why does it say *excluding ceneus next to government? What does that mean?

1:52 pm November 2, 2012

Jimmy V wrote:

Let's face ir the Agenda 21 people are in charge. Unless we get rid of the federal reserve system in the near future we're toast. The election mean little.

1:53 pm November 2, 2012

ny wrote:

"YoGaba wrote :
.Why does it say *excluding ceneus next to government? What does that mean?"

It means that the numbers displayed (appropriately) exclude the # of jobs related to doing the once-a-decade census. Lots of jobs created, but those are temporary and therefore would distort the job growth/loss data.

Why aren't any of the right-wing blowhards pointing out the DECREASE in government jobs under the tenure of a so-called Big Government Socialist King?

1:58 pm November 2, 2012

Kato Institute of propaganda wrote:

The Northeast is recovering.

2:03 pm November 2, 2012

HoneyBadger wrote:

Did you notice there is an increase in everything since Obama took office except for government jobs? Come on, we all know the unemployment rate does not look like this.

2:20 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Private-sector payrolls are up 759,000 since January 2009. Government jobs are down 565,000 under Mr. Obama’s tenure.

The economy under President Bush added 1.1 million jobs over eight years based on the total payroll count between January 2001 and January 2009. That number was positive only because the number of government jobs rose during those years. Private-sector employment fell by 646,000 during his presidency.

Where was the Tea Party during the Bush years?

2:22 pm November 2, 2012

Dan, Palm Springs, CA wrote:

What's really amusing is when a newspaper like the WSJ (the print equivalent of Fox News) prints an article about improved job stats under Obama, it outrages the right wing nuts who post their rants here. It's like they are cheering for the downfall of America ... like members of al-queda masquerading as Americans. A sick bunch, you are.

2:40 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Where did the person making the payroll claims above get the data? The Economic Report of the President (Table B-36) shows employment grew by 2.9 million during the Bush years. It also shows (Table B-46) that total federal employment grew less than 70,000. Message to readers: Don't believe a lot of what people write in this space; check the figures that a lot of people obviously are making up.

2:48 pm November 2, 2012

anonymous wrote:

I know many well-qualified older workers who have been displaced from the economy four or five years running...there are millions upon millions upon millions in this situation.

Tell me again how much things are improving.

2:56 pm November 2, 2012

the ssdi president wrote:

obama did a much better job of expanding the food stamp and ssdi roles than he did the employment roles.

and what about the quality of the jobs created

barry has turned the usa into part time usa

2:59 pm November 2, 2012

Clown Romney wrote:

Read the numbers - contrary to GOP thinking, Government jobs rose under George W 8 years and proivate sector went down. So under George W it was larger Government.

Under Obama, government jobs went down by 565000 and private sectors job went up by 759000. Had government jobs remained at same level, total job gain would have been more than 1.2 million (i.e. more than job gain George W. had in 8 years - it was 1.1 million)

Will intellectually challenged GOP understand this ?

3:04 pm November 2, 2012

Mike wrote:

So under Obama, private sector jobs and manufacturing are recovering from the devastation of Bush Jr....

And when Bush Sr. was organizing a recovery, it was mostly govt jobs added?

Yea, the GOP is just a hypocritical joke at this point. Kudos to the posts above again questions statistics and measures when they disagree with the numbers. Sign of intelligence all around.

3:06 pm November 2, 2012

Mike wrote:

Also, I wonder how much you would have to bribe Murdoch to have the guts to put an analysis like this on Fox News and force a GOP senator or even Romney / Bush to interpret or defend it.

But of course, 'fair and biased'.... lol

3:09 pm November 2, 2012

JKF in NYC wrote:

When did conservatives start comparing the 2008 global crash with the 1980 recession? There is no comparison in magnitude, global reach, or severity.

3:11 pm November 2, 2012

uncle ben wrote:

if you want to credit anyone for this pathetic excuse for a recovery then write my name in for president on
election day

3:15 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Clown Romney is making up numbers. As I noted above, see the Economic Report of the President, which shows that the numbers that Clown Romney is posting cannot possibly be correct.

3:31 pm November 2, 2012

Rom-NO wrote:

"Private-sector employment fell by 646,000 during his presidency." Just about says it all. Mittens to the rescue!

3:31 pm November 2, 2012

Rom-NO wrote:

"his" meaning Bush's, by the way.

3:35 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

Rom-NO won't bother to look at the actual data in the Economic Report of the President, either. Total employment rose by about 2.9 million in the Bush years. Federal government employment increased by less than 70,000. Look at the actual data! (By the way, I am looking at the Economic Report of the [CURRENT] President for the data.)

3:44 pm November 2, 2012

Independant wrote:

The real evaluation should be from December 2008 to now as we knew who would be president and he took office only a few days into January. That 1 month makes a HUGE difference.

3:49 pm November 2, 2012

Rob wrote:

Overlay with the S&P 500 index and you'll see the big problem. Investing is back to pre-2008 'baseline' but jobs are still struggling to recover. Same industry, same Wall St. investment, but fewer employees. What's different? ObamaCare and taxes. The unemployed (and those not counted in the stat like underemployed or people who stopped looking for work) are in an incredibly tough spot. For employment under Obama's tenure to return to pre-2008 levels, we need industry to be +10% at least, not back to baseline.

But Obama told us this back in 2009 -- remember that 7%+ unemployment will be the new 'norm'? Well there you go.

3:56 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

i luv obama

3:59 pm November 2, 2012

C.W.Zachary wrote:

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but can someone please explain to me why people refer to everyone before President Obama as "President", and yet refer to President Obama as Mr. Obama. In your article you repeatedly refer to Obama as Mr., but refer to Bush several times as President Bush. I'm just curious why. I have seen this difference elsewhere and it confuses me. Is this some personal slight against Obama? If so, how very petty. I would think regardless of whom is President that respect of the office should warrant the use of their proper title.

4:00 pm November 2, 2012

Fred wrote:

Unemployment and jobs were added for 7 and one half years. You compare that to 4 years of Obama failure and call it equal? Obama and the Democraps spent 5 trillion dollars, added trillions in debt and broke the economy with Obamacare. There is no comparison, Bush was 10 times the man Obama turned out to be.

4:22 pm November 2, 2012

J wrote:

Ah, look at the deniers cry and whine their way to more, "But..but...but Obama has failed!"

They can't face the facts so they turn their back, cover their ears, and wait for their masters to tell them what "the real facts" are on their "real" news network.

4:27 pm November 2, 2012

D Boyd wrote:

Sorry conservatives, no way to spin this your way. WSJ did it's best by not showing the decline in employment starting in 2008, the last year of "W"'s reign. Once the false growth of the real estate bubble (fueled by his bank deregulation) burst, the joyride was over. If you start the graph back there it's obvious who's fault it is. It took Obama a year to stop the slide but he did.

Employment is better than when he took control of an economy that was in free-fall - DESPITE all the government layoffs! (not counting the temporary jobs created by conducting the census) Reality is we can't have the government employing that many people. And, under Obama, government is shrinking (thought that was what you wanted?!?). Government grew under Bush.

More impressive - manufacturing jobs grew under Obama - that hasn't happened in years. That is critical (as "get a clue" points out) to provide some gainful employment for those without the acumen or access to education to allow them to participate in a knowledeg based industry.

Bottom line, things are getting better - for a broader percentage of Americans - because of Obama's policies

4:30 pm November 2, 2012

Haysoos wrote:

Too all the people calling obama a failure: LOOK AT THE GRAPH. If Bush and Obama were pilots, bush handed off while the airplane was in a nosedive of death and you want to blame obama?! Are we looking at the same graph? Because I see Obama pulled out of the nose dive and managed a STEADY GROWTH. Bush left with a STEEP DELINE. You want to criticize the guy that reversed the SHARP DECLINE in only one year, and had steady growth for the next 3?! LOOK AT THE GRAPH, did none of you pass math after 7th grade!?

5:01 pm November 2, 2012

T Brink wrote:

C.W.Zachary:
This is done with every president. It is nothing new.

And it only cost ~5.6 TRILLION DOLLARS to get this much job growth...no thanks. Obama is without a doubt, one of the biggest failures as a president.

5:03 pm November 2, 2012

Elkhorn Slough wrote:

Sergeant Ermey

The sheeple on here don't get it. Ignorance is bliss! Neither party offers anything but more misery and more blame period.

5:04 pm November 2, 2012

Sam Rosen wrote:

If the fed lives you die.

5:13 pm November 2, 2012

Z Watts wrote:

A play on rhetoric from either side is a ball game I do not engage in. This two party system reminds me of a chicken fight observed by myself long ago down in Mississippi. Many here tout an inference of facts when they have no clue on the criteria being used to derive such analysis. Hence chicken scratch. And if one cannot stretch their intelligence out far enough to grasp at such misconceptions of what facts really are, then I suggest keep your reading and commenting to a realm that circles such rubbish as the enquirer or something equal to that. You are boring me.

5:15 pm November 2, 2012

db. wrote:

where's pelosi and dean been during this campaign?

5:20 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

How could anyone argue with a straight face that more than doubling the national debt just to obtain the tiniest net increase in employment was "successful" policymaking? The private sector has the government's heavy boot on its chest. We will see little improvement for millions of Americans until that boot is removed, but there is no way that President Obama will do so. indeed, he wants it to press down harder.

5:30 pm November 2, 2012

Jimmy V wrote:

Did any of you sheeple read Jefferson's quote and all the other presidents tatements above? Are you brain dead?

5:39 pm November 2, 2012

Ezra Neiman wrote:

We are about to turn into Greece as it collapses and most people don't even understand how pernicious the fed is. Instead they focus on candidates and play the blame game. It'd hard to understand how brainwashed people have become which plays right into the powers that be plans,

5:43 pm November 2, 2012

Sepor constraint wrote:

We have become a fascist plutocracy government and have been taken over without a shot fired. Go back to your Dancing With the Stars" and Keeping Up With the Kartrashians people, you deserve them.

5:55 pm November 2, 2012

Wow the electorate has turned politics into NFL Football Like Fandom wrote:

But what do you expect from the uneducated. It is pathetic how people are these days and so dissillusioned to their own ways and of history.

This is not a difficult concept - Jobs are not dropped down from heaven by the President (any one R or D), nor do his policies or grandstanding do much to influence....We are living the fruits of our labor and our culture…..Americans by and large have been overvalued for a long time in the international labor market. If you looked at the numbers today you saw jobs being created but average hourly wages falling when adjusted for official inflation and decimated when looking at the cost of living for necessary items, food, housing, college costs, ect. This is merely an indication that the rest of the world has caught up to our talent and what we are able to produce in a given period on aggregate. For decades we read how Korean, Chinese and others had demolished US students in math based on standardized tests and we all know how inner city schools have been pumping out 20% of each class who are essentially illiterate. The education and thus ability of our competitors has caught up and suprassed us. The US’ best and brightests (and even just avg and above) continue to make more money as the market has now opened up worldwide for all types of things – but for the middle and below who can only offere their services locally to companies that work worldwide your competition has gone up by about a billion; thus supply demand and that groups bargaining power is nil.

So prepare for decades of this trend because to catch up in education is no easy task. Those in the middle/upper middle and above you will continue to be ostracized and attacked by the usual class warfare subjects as making an unfair amount of money. The sad thing is that if our culture valued education as we once did and as others do now, more people would be prosperous as the world would be your market = more sales/money to get = mroe jobs/salary that can be created and paid.

6:07 pm November 2, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

"Wow the electorate...": Very good points. I am reminded of departing a restaurant as two young men were awaiting job application forms for open positions. One reeked of cigarette smoke, and the other looked as if he had just smoked some marijuana; in this extreme case, it was apparent that the young men had not a clue even how to present themselves to an employer. But as a college professor, I see each semester more and more young people who do not have any experience in truly studying with an aim to deeply learn new concepts. "Teaching to the test"--that great "gift" from Bush and Kennedy--has created an underclass of shallowly "educated" young people. Many young people are still good students, but a larger share really do not know how to learn--and keep in mind that these are college students I am describing. I shudder to think of what is happening to those who are not "college material." Perhaps it is no wonder that so many positions requiring understanding what we used to regard as "basic trigonometry" and an ability to engage in what was known as "essential business writing" now go unfilled.

8:52 pm November 2, 2012

Rich wrote:

Don't forget that President Bush inherited 911, and still our recovery was quite remarkable in spite of it.

9:19 pm November 2, 2012

Joe Smith wrote:

Of course, adding potential workers at a rate of 120,000 a month... getting back to zero to 5 million behind.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of twelve private banks which are not part of the United States Government.

The Primary Owners of the Federal Reserve Banks Are:

1. Rothschild’s of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Goldman, Sachs of New York
7. Rockefeller Brothers of New York

The bank is supposed to bring stability to the economy, however, almost every major marked crash and war can be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank, including the Great Depression, WW I, WW II, the Gulf War etc.

In 1913 in exchange for paying for his Presidential campaign, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act handing over the U.S. currency to twelve regional private banks. In 1933 Roosevelt confiscated citizens gold and handed it to these private banks.

9:33 pm November 2, 2012
Robert H. Hamphill wrote :

“We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system…. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
– Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

12:04 am November 3, 2012

2:35 am November 3, 2012

Paul Descartes wrote:

So when did the WSJ start hiring washed up Huffpo bloggers to report on the job market?

2:36 am November 3, 2012

Paul Descartes wrote:

"It puts the lotion on the statistics."

8:23 am November 3, 2012

Carmi wrote:

Interesting. The number of government job up under Bush and down under Obama. Mitt should have checked the records before he made the claim that government doesn't create jobs.

8:31 am November 3, 2012

Cowabunga wrote:

Rich wrote :

Don’t forget that President Bush inherited 911, and still our recovery was quite remarkable in spite of it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not so sure you cab say Bush's recovery was remarkable when he ended with a recession worse than he started with.

2:55 pm November 3, 2012

TM wrote:

Yep - as expected, the commenters here skew toward "if it's from Obama, it must be bad". This is the WSJ folks - it's where you go for your conservative fill. Bottom line is that - leyond all the parsing and avoiding here - the image of Obama as a government-expanding, private-sector-reducing President is another phantasm of your fever dreams.

6:53 pm November 3, 2012

Bobby Bobo wrote:

Rich wrote :
"Don’t forget that President Bush inherited 911, and still our recovery was quite remarkable in spite of it."
Do you mean he inherited the Dot Com bubble bust? 9/11 happened nearly 9 months into his presidency.

3:30 am November 5, 2012

Mahder Tesfaye wrote:

It is true and Obama uses all his potential to crate work he is one person and if he crate and give the opottunity for every one to work why not every person try to crate job ?why evry one wait spoon food ?why they wait for another leader ? If there are posibilities why not they uses ?He did not restricted?

1:31 pm November 5, 2012

Dan K wrote:

Can you label your axes next time you make a graph? I can't tell what those percentages mean. If its truly 'change in the number of jobs', then we should have a radically larger unemployment number than we do. If the graph is just showing number of jobs as a percentage then the numbers jive, but the graph title doesn't indicate that.

11:02 am November 9, 2012

CA Conservative wrote:

This article is pablum.....for you PuffHo sheeple out there, that is baby food. The real problem is our 16 trillion dollar debt (really 100T with long-term pension costs factored in) which is growing at 1T+ per year. MISTER Obama was supposed to fix this, as has every president since Wilson created the FED. The cosmic joke continues....and the sheeple do not get it.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Real Time Economics

Real Time Economics offers exclusive news, analysis and commentary on the U.S. and global economy, central bank policy and economics. Send news items, comments and questions to the editors and reporters below or email realtimeeconomics@wsj.com.